dagblog - Comments for "The Nephew from Hell: Edward Bernays and the science of American bullshit"

You are a quick study!

David Seaton — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:19:00 +0000

In reply to Mmm, wait. So this post is

You are a quick study!

Mmm, wait. So this post is

LisB — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:30:13 +0000

In reply to The Nephew from Hell: Edward Bernays and the science of American bullshit

Mmm, wait. So this post is not going to include a recipe for Bearnaise sauce?

I'm not that concerned with

David Seaton — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:37:54 +0000

In reply to My biggest problem with the

I'm not that concerned with politically correct in itself, more with the debasement of language so I agree with the the line, "Don't use "political correctness" as a proxy for the real problem."

Which would also vilify the

cmaukonen — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:32:27 +0000

In reply to I am not a Taliban on this,

Which would also vilify the regular idiots. Like those who are currently in congress.

My biggest problem with the

Verified Atheist — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:27:32 +0000

In reply to My biggest problem with

My biggest problem with the way that politically correct speech is often portrayed is that different people mean different things when they raise that particular bogeyman and thus the phrase "politically correct" is among the least clear and least precise terms used. If a particular phrase is phony, superficial, shallow, and dishonest (and just to be clear, I'm in complete agreement that many phrases are), attack it on those grounds. Don't use "political correctness" as a proxy for the real problem.

My biggest problem with

cmaukonen — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:10:37 +0000

In reply to The Nephew from Hell: Edward Bernays and the science of American bullshit

My biggest problem with politically correct speech is that far, far too often it is phony, superficial, shallow and dishonest. Concealing the users true thoughts and feelings on the subject. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear it is....bullshit.

I am not a Taliban on this,

David Seaton — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:13:05 +0000

In reply to How exactly does one measure

I am not a Taliban on this, for example I think it is better to say that somebody is suffering from Down's syndrome than to call them a mongoloid idiot

How exactly does one measure

Verified Atheist — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:34:16 +0000

In reply to When asked what the first

How exactly does one measure the clarity of language? I find clinical terms (such as PTSD) more precise than colloquialisms (such as "shell shock"), and I find precise terms to be clearer. On the other hand, I think such "politically correct" terms such as "police officer" over "police woman" or "policeman" are sometimes less precise as they (deliberately) remove the sex of the subject from the description. In this case, however, I'd argue that the reduction in precision actually improves the clarity as it helps us to make fewer assumptions.

That said, there are many phrase changes that are deliberately obfuscating - "collateral damage" comes to mind.

There were always the two

David Seaton — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:50:54 +0000

In reply to how America had become such a

There were always the two Americas, the crummy and the noble. 19th century newspapers published the Lincoln Douglas debates and people all over the country read them and discussed them intelligently, they led to Lincoln becoming president. No debate of that quality between comparable candidates could be "packaged" in today's America.

When asked what the first

David Seaton — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:49:15 +0000

In reply to The Nephew from Hell: Edward Bernays and the science of American bullshit

When asked what the first thing he would do if crowned emperor, Confucius replied that he would, "clarify the language". Clear speech being a clear sign of clear thought and clear thought being a sign of a clear conscious.

Under the leadership of Bernays and his followers, American English has been significantly degraded, indeed debauched, as George Carlin skillfully illustrates in the monologue that cmaukonen has kindly posted here.

As serfs of corporate America, its citizens are encouraged to use this debased language as feudal serfs were encouraged to use religion: as an opiate or evasion from fear, pain and oppression.

As someone in the film points out, democracy is about changing the traditional relations of power, however the genius of American democracy has been to use democracy to maintain the traditional relations of power. This inevitably leads America's political course into doublethink and doubletalk, rather like the sermons of a TV evangelist with a taste in massage parlors.